Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 37316
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.102946 OF 2023 (LAC)
BETWEEN:
THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KARNATAKA NEERAVARI NIGAM LTD., GRBC DIVISION NO.2, HIDKAL DAM, TQ: HUKKERI, DIST: BELAGAVI – 591 107.
…APPELLANT (BY SRI K. S. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, HADKAL DAM, TQ: HUKKERI, DIST: BELAGAVI – 591 107.
2. BASAPPA KAREPPA KENCHANNAVAR, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: YADDALABAVIHATTI, TQ AND DIST: BELAGAVI – 590 001.
SAROJA HANGARAKI …RESPONDENTS DH LKD+oai a0Ag crt5Ni enat 3:taGa
0i 2tl oA a0y nR k 2:s a A 4Hi ,gK .D1inI g 1he h .d a1 Cr 9b wo y 1ua 2S rdt :A 3 BoR 6efO :n4J c4 A h ( BY SMT. KIRTILATA R. PATIL, HCGP FOR R1)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/SEC.74(1) OF RIGHT TO FAIR COMPENSATION AND TRANSPARENCY IN LAND ACQUISITION, REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT ACT, 2013, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 31.08.2018 PASSED IN LAC.NO.107/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, BELAGAVI, AND ETC., THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA)
ere CPtaes notice for respondent No.1.
oiei otissued to respondent No.2 since the apeal is ipsdo na uestion of law.
.Ths appeal is iled under Section 74(1) of the ih oFar Compensation and Transparency in Land custo,Rhblttin and Resettlement Act, 20131 aigacalenge to the udgment & Award dated 10.08pse y heReference Cout in LAC o1721,weene ehancement of compnsatio a ee ccorded. he above appel s fild beyond the rsrbdpro f 0 + 60 = 10days and there is a ea f95 days in filng the appeal. An aplication is ie ekigcondonation of dlay.
.Setion 74(1) along with the Proviso thereto sbscin()ntbin relevant) of the 201 Act is oie o eay eference:
“74. Appeal to High Court.
(1) The Requiring Body or any person aggrieved by the Award passed by an Authority under section 69 may file an appeal to the High Court within sixty days from the date of Award:
Provided that the High Court may, if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal within the said period, allow it to be filed within a further period not exceeding sixty days.”
.Th language of Sub-section (1) of Section 74 n heproviso thereof of the 2013 Act is clear.Further, a iiinBnhofthis Court in the case of THE DEPUTY OMSINRADSEIL AND ACQUISITIN FIE,BNAUR VS. M/S. S.V. GLOBAL MILL IIE,CENI2 ha examne the matter in great ealadhed that Setion 74 ofthe 2013 Act is adtr nntread an applction for condonatio of ea eon the statutorily permissible timelimit is not ibet e avourably considered. urther, a Division ec fths Court in te case of THE EXEUTIV NIERV.SECAL LAND ACQUIITION
2 ILR 2020 KAR 1897 FIE3hsdecined the request for referig he atrfrreonideration to a larger Bench.
5. In view of the aforementioned, the application seeking condonation of delay is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal is also dismissed.
.Itis made cear tat his Court has not xmndtemttr on merits with eard to the utiaiiyo edtrintion ofmarket vale and osqetehneen of compensation awarded by the eeec or.Th dismissal o his appeal is subject to h ecsion in SLP Nos.215 2016 of 2023 (M/s S.V lblMl Lmied) ending befre the on’ble Apex or.
.Inview of dismisal of this appeal, the egistry otrnsmit te amount i deposit, if any, to the Refrence or medaely for being released in favour of liat nacrdnce with law.
.Inview of disposa of the main ppeal, pending nelctr plctos,i any, do not survive for osdrto.
